I don't think you are a jerk any more than any one else I argue with.

I am an agnostic, my best friend is an atheist, and I routinely harangue him for his arrogance, which is as bad as Pat Robertson's.

I'll be 43 in a couple of weeks, BTW.

And I'm no bleeding heart liberal. I'm pro death penalty, against gun control, and many other things. But I believe in basic fairness, and when folk start talking of Reaganomics or the like, I have little patience.

My dad was similar in views on Nixon. My view is that those who supported Reagan, for the most part, live in bubbles, and generally accept that the things they have are all fairly earned. Not that some are not, but we do live in a zero sum world. Until we can get off this planet, all capital and all things are zero sum.

I don't begrudge the rich, but add something to the society. CEOs add nothing. Tom Edison did, and deserved hi spoils. If you have an idea or invention and can sell it for profit great. But, the retailer, the usurers who add nothing to the system but leeching off others ideas area big problem- this would include agents in assorted fields.

But, the worst offenders are corporations, which are, as I state in the linked post, 'Golems'. They are public entities and should not, as Ambrose Bierce said, be used to enhance individual wealth at the expense of individual responsibility.

No one has ever gotten rich alone. Even Edison needed glass factories to make his light bulbs and steel mills to make his incandescent wires.

We are all intimately tied to one another, like it or not. This is not Communism- a view which diagnosed Capitalism's ills, but provided even worse solutions, but reality. What Reagan tried to do was cut off the well off from any responsibility to those that allowed them to be well off. Fairly giving back does not mean equal distribution, but it does, or should mean, that your third car or first yacht takes lower precedence over homeless families and children who need to see a Dr.

I'm not rich, but likely pay more in taxes, as % of my income (last year about 22%) than Bill Gates did. That's simply wrong.

Mine is abel-DOT-reply-AT-gmail-DOT-com.

Will I ultimately change my mind? Maybe, maybe not. But I do want to thank you — and I mean that sincerely — for not giving up on this exchange.

After all, despite your sense that I'm an elitist jerk, I'm actually much more compassionate today at 43 with some disposable income than I was at 23 with none. I do believe in government assistance to the unfortunate, and as I've tried to make clear, I'm willing to pay my part of it. No, I'm not willing — yet — to give up more than I'm paying now, but I am open to being convinced I perhaps should, voluntarily or otherwise.

And no, I'm not caving, but I am calling a temporary truce, until I can review more about these topics and have something to offer that does not descend into a purely emotional argument, as I've allowed myself in these latest comments to do.

Until then, I hope you will at least concede that a human heart might still beat in the chest of someone like me.

And what about basic fairness? What of life, liberty & pursuit? Do you think that a system as currently set up, where the rich and corps (legal fictions wholly dependent upon the state's sanction, and public entities) get subsidized by the poor and working class, is fair? And what do you call programs that offer corp welfare? If that's not confiscatory, what is?

'You certainly can force the rich to pay for the poor if they don't want to, but only at the risk of removing their liberties in favor of others' liberties.'

Their is no right against taxation in the Constitution, as long as one gets political representation in return. The system of public commons allows the rich to get rich. On TMV I posted this review of a Libertarian book: http://themoderatevoice.com/entertainment/revie...

Here is what I wrote (part of it): 'The civil libertarian arguments about taxation are thus not applicable to a legal fiction, for the government is literally the Dr. Frankenstein to the corporate Monster, and wholly responsible for the framework it creates to allow corporations to exist. They are also wholly dependent upon the public commons to exist.

Even a behemoth like Wal-Mart needs the roads that the public commons provides- for its own shipping of products, and for the customers it hopes to sell to. Therefore, any corporation has an obligation to the state to help provide for the commonweal of the very entity that created it and allows it to operate. If not, the government has every right to revoke its legal status, if the corporation violates that other tenet of the public commons- the regulations for safety and competitive balance, even if it legally requires a corporation to provide free and public information to its investors, state sanctioned minimum wages, or even health insurance to employees.

Libertarians always forget one crucial fact about corporations; well, many, but this one is cogent to the matter at hand. Corporations are not individuals, and not natural free market phenomena.

The first corporations, in fact, were state chartered enterprises. Only later did governments allow individuals and groups to create their own corporations, provided they play within a given set of rules, and be answerable to the government via regulating agencies. These rules- part of the public commons, are put in place so that the folks running these legal fictions do not run roughshod over smaller non-corporate businesses with monopolistic and predatory business practices which their very size- created, allowed and sanctioned by the state, allows them to attain, well beyond the limits of any individual or partnership.

Without the state, Sam Walton could never have created Wal-Mart- for good or ill, John D. Rockefeller could never have forged the modern oil industry, J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie could never have created U.S. Steel, and Bill Gates could never have made the Internet accessible to the masses via Windows and Internet Explorer.

In short, Libertarians make a false distinction when they credit ‘private enterprise’ with innovation and government with stifling it. Most advances in the free market come through the government- only one step removed, via their sanctioned Golems- the ‘public corporations,’ and not from a bunch of Thomas Edisons backed by a few investors. Corporations are in no sense an example of the free market, but a perfect (or imperfect) realization of the state’s indirect intervention in the so-called ‘free market.’ Thank you, Mr. Keynes.'

'I'm very generous with what I earn, and once again, I'm very willing to pay more taxes than those less fortunate, but if I'm ever fortunate enough to earn more than a half mill in a year, it's simply wrong and antithetical to this country's founding/purpose to ask me or anyone for that matter to give up 90% of that incremental portion of my income.'

Show me in the Constitution. That's BS, and one of the reasons why Capitalism failed in the 1930s. The Const, BTW, starts 'We the people,' in the plural, not 'WE the selfish individuals, for a reason.

Note, too, 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense'. Words like Union and Common are at the very top of this document, for a reason.

'But in a free society they cannot and should not be required to do so. Economics 101 says that if you encourage entrepreneurial spirit by allowing people to keep more of their wealth, they build businesses that provide jobs and other benefits. We've seen that work well repeatedly for hundreds of years. What part of this are you blind to? Why do you insist on a return to socialism/communism, experiments proven to fail, over and over again.'

Now you are being pathological. No one is talking Communism- that's a canard. All you do is set an upper and lower limit to individual power and wealth. Question, with a 90% tax rate at top, would you still rather earn $10 mill a year or $10k and pay no taxes?

And, as trickle down showed, wealth at the top does not flow to the lower classes. $ always works its way upward. This is precisely why the US was most prosperous economically w higher tax rates.

'We can agree to disagree, but you are flagrantly ignoring the well-proven foundations of a free-market economy, the greatest hope for any individual to live free and live well.'

Free markets do not have the Fed regulating them, they do not have huge corps micromanaging the rates of interest, nor the prices of commodities to their benefit- see Enron, etc. Have you ever heard of John Maynard Keynes? Or are you still living in the Victorian fantasy world of Adam Smith?

'Am I arguing for no taxation? No. I'm arguing for reasonable taxation. The government cannot — especially not the federal government — be the end-all solution to what ails us, not without making the state so powerful that liberty disappears.'

Actually, I'm arguing for reasonable taxation, those with more means helping out those with less, because they got their means do the the way the system is set up. Societies fray when there is huge disparity in wealth and rights. And 'the state' is far more powerful today, in the post-Patriot Act hysteria, than at any time since the suspension of certain rights in the Civil War. And this with huge giveaways to corps.

'But I cannot and no longer will have this particular discussion with someone who clearly refuses to acknowledge the need for balance, who instead believes that 90% taxation on any bracket of income, total or incremental, is fair and just. It's not and never will be.'

Then stop the convo in your head and join the real world. You have shown, in this thread, an alarming elitism, a snobbish condescension against those w less than you, as well as fundamental lack of knowledge about taxation and the way government works, and has worked.

'Finally, I'm sorry if I've lost my cool on this exchange, my ability to be “moderate,” but I'm sincerely baffled with your refusal to acknowledge even the most basic tenets of a free society.'

I have, stop channeling Jay Gould & co. I have taken the moderate position. You have not. That explains well your admiration for Ronald Reagan.

I just love it when people hang themselves with their own strings.

What about individual liberty? What about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The founders didn't set up this nation to advance the “public commons” or “common good.” They set it up to advance individual liberty — including liberty from confiscatory taxation.

I understand what graduated taxation means perfectly well. But I still argue that nobody should have to pay 90% taxes on any level or portion of income, whether it's $1 billion or $1. You certainly can force the rich to pay for the poor if they don't want to, but only at the risk of removing their liberties in favor of others' liberties. That's not what our founding fathers intended.

I'm very generous with what I earn, and once again, I'm very willing to pay more taxes than those less fortunate, but if I'm ever fortunate enough to earn more than a half mill in a year, it's simply wrong and antithetical to this country's founding/purpose to ask me or anyone for that matter to give up 90% of that incremental portion of my income.

If someone like Warren Buffett wants to voluntarily give away their fortune, hoorah. But in a free society they cannot and should not be required to do so. Economics 101 says that if you encourage entrepreneurial spirit by allowing people to keep more of their wealth, they build businesses that provide jobs and other benefits. We've seen that work well repeatedly for hundreds of years. What part of this are you blind to? Why do you insist on a return to socialism/communism, experiments proven to fail, over and over again.

We can agree to disagree, but you are flagrantly ignoring the well-proven foundations of a free-market economy, the greatest hope for any individual to live free and live well.

Am I arguing for no taxation? No. I'm arguing for reasonable taxation. The government cannot — especially not the federal government — be the end-all solution to what ails us, not without making the state so powerful that liberty disappears.

I'm more than willing to have a reasonable discussion with anyone about the right balance between taxation and wealth, and I believe there is a balance to be found. I also believe there is a role for the feds to play in addressing serious national issues and inequalities, from health to education. But I cannot and no longer will have this particular discussion with someone who clearly refuses to acknowledge the need for balance, who instead believes that 90% taxation on any bracket of income, total or incremental, is fair and just. It's not and never will be.

Finally, I'm sorry if I've lost my cool on this exchange, my ability to be “moderate,” but I'm sincerely baffled with your refusal to acknowledge even the most basic tenets of a free society.

Given you seem to not even know the basics of US tax history, you are out of touch w both!

It means not that 90% of the rich's income is taken. It means, Say some rich biz owner earned 10 mill last year. Well, he would be taxed at whatever the going rate was- say 20% for the first 50-60k, then 25-30% for the next 100k, 340-50% for the next bracket, up to a half mill, or whatever it is now, then 90% of the rest over that.

From the 1930s to 1970s this was the basic tax structure, and we had a great middle class and economic growth unparalleled in our history. When incomes are squeezed to the middle, everyone benefits.

The rich are rich because the system we have allows some folk to become and stay rich- it is not a natural law. They should not have the means, aided by gov't, of having the poor and working class bail them out- see Corporate welfare.

It's a concept known as the public commons.

In short, if you give a buck to a million people all of that will flow back into the economy. If you give a mill to one person, most of that will be out of the economy.

It's economics 101.

And you think the poor should pay the same percentage as the rich- that's criminal and shd be stopped!

And you think 90% taxation is right? I don't care how much someone makes — that's criminal and it should have been stopped.

But, the easy way which you dismiss others suffering vis-a-vis you and your homey's better lives, says alot as to why you, or any Reagan supporter supported him

Which gets back to my point- that only those who benefited from Reagan's policies think well of him. Hello 5%, real as ever.

Green is right, most of the Reagan accomplishments seem illusory because they were.

Clinton, too, but we'll save that for another thread. One boner a thread is enough for you, or any man.

I'm not conceding the debate, but with all due respect, I have grown weary of it. As a parting shot, for the record, during Reagan's years, I was not in the top 5% of wage earners (I was in high school and college) nor were my parents in that bracket, nor (to the best of my knowledge) are any of us in that bracket now.

And yet, miraculously, our lives — and the lives of the other middle-class Americans we knew then and know now — improved under Reagan's tenure as well as Clinton's … which points back to my original argument before this exchange became a debate about Reagan's legacy, i.e., a President's domestic policies have (in the last 20-plus years at least) had very little to do with our respective states of well being. Perhaps, then, it's true for most Americans, not just a privileged few, that Reagan's and Clinton's greatest legacies were that they generally stayed out of the way and (as Obama suggested) encouraged the entrepreneurial nature of this country to thrive.

I'm sorry that you're so fixed on dismissing Reagan that you miss the larger point: His (and Clinton's and others') legacies are based not on theories or ideologies, but on majority experience, and as polls and anecdotes confirm, your mythical 5% is just that: mythical.

in Margaret Thatcher's words, [Reagan] “won the Cold War without firing a shot”. But such an argument would not have made all the useful political points implicit in his quote, notably that (a) Reagan changed America for the better; (b) his changes limited government and liberated private entrepreneurship; (c) these changes were necessary and reflected what Americans wanted; and, above all, (d) president Clinton really hadn't altered the trajectory that Reagan launched any more than Nixon had altered the liberal trajectory of FDR and LBJ.

This list amounts to a comprehensive dissing of Democratic pieties and recent Democratic history. Obama's rivals were virtually compelled to attack it.

Oh please! a comprehensive dissing? It's all sloganeering. Thatcher's quote is BS. Reagan didn't defeat the Soviets. The rest of the “list” contains no specifics at all. How did he “change America for the better”? How did he “limit government” or “liberate private entrepreneurship”? As to “constraining government,” the GOP deregulation accomplishments have been fully consistent with elevating private gain over the public good, while protecting companies from liability for their actions.

Oh yes, and your “Clinton/Gingrich” quip cleverly attempts to hand credit to the GOP, but they fought tooth and nail against Clinton's economic policy. Reagan's “trickle-down” economics didn't work. Well, for most of us. As Iowa Sen Harkin put it Reaganomics is where “you give oats to the horses so the grass roots are fed”. It failed. Its successor, Bushenomics has failed worse. Debt soared, jobs plummeted, the dollar crashed and now we have economic crisis because real income is down, jobs are outsourced overseas and consumers can't afford the foreign-produced offerings that American companies now sell.

Well, re: the economy, etc., we'll never agree, because I was not in the top 5%. But look at your claim- you are basically praising style. His oratory qualities are what any passable, aka B, actor could muster.

Y'know, I read that book a few years back, on Reagan's letters, and, despite the hagiographer's claims, they were nothing but empty cliches, and quotes from others. The man literally did not have a deep nor original thought in his mind. He was a puppet, and not even that good a writer of missives.

And, I still have yet to hear a single substantive accomplishment, save some disputed facts re: government growth. Move over Teddy R., here comes The Gipper!